Scal: You're correct in that true Liberalism does not really exist. For clarification, the term Liberalism used today in America more correctly refers to Progressivism. To provide better context, for a look at the roots of Progressivism, see Theodore Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, etc. For a look at it today, look at Nancy Pelosi, Barrack Obama, Harry Reid, and pretty much anyone in control of the hard Left in US politics... George Soros, Michael Moore, etc. Basically socialist and/or fascist politics, practices, and ideals.
Woodsman: I'm not surprised that she was denied employment for not being radical enough. I just hope she learns something important from the experience, that these people do not care about individuals, only their agenda and a given person's usefulness as a tool for that agenda. That's one of the more damnable elements of Progressive movements is that individuals are worthless outside of their usefulness to the collective, be it the State, or whatever organizing body is at work. I've noted to people before, usually in arguments, that the behavior of many secular or atheist individuals and organizations take on all the negative characteristics that they associate with religion, just without a god figure (the organization or the agenda fills this roll without being called as such). The usual reaction I've received is either a full-on verbal attack, a quick subject change, or being personally insulted. From what are supposed to be more "enlightened" individuals that's a rather juvenile response but I've found it to be a typical response from anyone who does not like to question their own behaviors, ideals, or beliefs. Blindness is not strictly confined to religion, but then, one would have to have eyes to see it.
|
